[elfexec]

> It would however bring the world economy to a grinding halt.

I think you overestimate the importance of flights to the world economy. If all flights ended tomorrow, the world economy would chug along and hardly notice. Banning trains, trucks or ships would be devastating to the world economy though.

> We need to focus on interventions that will actually make a difference. Sadly, most of those are through government regulation, which most major economies are unwilling to do.

Both those interventions would actually hurt the world economy.

Let me guess, you take a lot of flights every year? Can't defend flights under the false assumption it'll hurt the world economy and then support "interventions" that will actually hurt the world economy.

[jedberg]

All interventions will hurt the economy. If they didn't then they would already be happening as the most efficient use of capital.

But all flights worldwide only account for 2% of all CO2.

Industrial output accounts for 22% and electricity 28%.

If we regulated all electricity to be carbon neutral, that would make electricity cost more and harm the economy, but it would have a huge effect on emissions.

Flying just isn't that important to climate change, but it is quite important to the economy. Not a lot of goods move by air, but people do. A lot of the world depends on tourism. For some countries, it is the main contributor to their GDP.

Yeah, I fly a few times a year, sometimes to the other side of the planet, for business. And also for tourism where I spend a bunch of money buying local goods.

I also use a lot of energy. I pay extra to make sure that energy all comes from carbon neutral sources. That makes a much bigger difference to climate change than using a plane.

[chii]

People like the above commenter likes to ban flights, because they themselves are unlikely to _need_ flights very often, and so proportionally pay a less price for such a ban (and the positive effects are shared equally across the globe).

Let's see if they propose the same argument if the banning was for driving, or some other form of carbon emission that affects them a lot more (like food, or heating).

[elfexec]

> Not a lot of goods move by air, but people do.

This simply isn't true. More people use the NYC metro in one day than people fly in the entire US over an entire year. Comparatively speaking, hardly anyone flies compared to using trains, buses, cars and every other major form of transportation.

> A lot of the world depends on tourism.

No. The world depends on oil, gas, etc. The world depends on transportation of goods. The world depends on manufacturing and production. The world doesn't depend on flights.

> I also use a lot of energy. I pay extra to make sure that energy all comes from carbon neutral sources. That makes a much bigger difference to climate change than using a plane.

No. It makes no difference. Other than allowed privileged people to pat themselves on the back.

I agree with you that flights make up a tiny fraction of overall emissions. But you are completely wrong about the impact of flying on the world economy. Ending flights won't bring the "world economy to a grinding halt." Just like ending flights would have neglible effects on overall emissions, it'll have neglible effects on the world economy. But use whatever rationalization to fly if it helps you sleep at night.

[jedberg]

"Aviation’s global economic impact (direct, indirect, induced and catalytic) is estimated at US$ 2,960 billion, equivalent to 8% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP)."

https://www.icao.int/Meetings/wrdss2011/Documents/JointWorks...

[elfexec]

> direct, indirect, induced and catalytic

Nice.

> is estimated at US$ 2,960 billion, equivalent to 8% of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Doesn't this prove my point? And that's including every conceivable thing possibly related to aviation ( direct, indirect, induced and catalytic ). Not just flights. Not quite, "grind down to a halt" is it?

For the last time, if flights stopped, the world economy isn't going to grind down to a halt. Flights are luxuries more than anything. The world can survive without luxuries. The oil industry, gas industry, international shipping, railroads, trucks, etc can bring the world economy to a grinding halt. Not sure why you are still arguing when objectively, your statement was wrong.

Why not just say instead of "the world economy grinding to a halt", you meant to say "the world economy will be slightly inconvenienced"?